Some Qs people asked me on science and my replies to them - Part 138

Q:What is the scientific explanation behind deafness due to loneliness, especially in old people?

Krishna: It is actually the other way round. Untreated deafness may lead to loneliness. Hearing problems and communication problems related to hearing loss are usually associated with loneliness in both old and young. Loneliness and isolation very often leads to depression and cognitive decline too.

Hearing aids and treatments can help many people with hearing loss feel more able to cope in society.

Q: Does drinking cow urine cure cancer?

Krishna: There are no medical or scientific data to support this dubious practice, but it has roots in history and in some religious and spiritual traditions.

Some people use it thinking that it can ‘cure’ certain diseases like cancer! If we could eradicate cancer with “Urine therapy” that would be a miracle! And miracles don’t occur 99.99% of the time!

While it is true that urine can contain tumor antigens, there is no evidence to show that drinking, massaging with, bathing in, or any other application of urine will stimulate antibody production or in any way fight off a cancer. The quantities of substances, including tumor antigens, present in urine are typically minuscule compared with those already present in the blood and elsewhere in the body. The bottom line is that drinking urine has no known medical benefit.

Contrary to the claims of alternative therapies that say urine has curative powers, urologists and nephrologists say that the increasing concentration of toxins will quickly do more harm than good. The American Cancer Society states that no well-controlled studies published in available scientific literature confirms the benefits of gaumutra therapy.

The patent says…the applicants thought of utilizing cow urine, which is not MICROBICIDAL but when present with a drug or active molecule, enhance its activity and availability (bioenhancers). The present invention was the result of planned experiments to provide a novel method for improving activity and bioavailability of antibiotics, drugs and other molecules using ‘cow urine distillate’ in different formulations.

It is similar to saying methi seeds ‘enhance’ the diabetic drug performance but they don’t actually act as drugs themselves.

THE PAPTENT CLEARLY SAYS gomutra IS NOT A MEDICINE BUT JUST A BIO-ENHANCER.

OH, YES IN LAB CONDITIONS SEVERAL THINGS HAPPEN WHEN ONLY TWO THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT IN ACTUAL COMPLEX HUMAN BODIES DIFFERENT REACTIONS might take place.

Gomutra might contain bioenhancers but they also contain several toxins too that the cow’s body is trying to excrete. Adistillateis a liquid which is condensed from a vapor duringdistillation and removes microbes and other substances that are harmful.

The best possible way to use bio-enhancers is to extract them, purify and use them.

Gaumutra has no benefits in cancer therapy. It is harmful in its raw form.

Please don’t take it while undergoing chemotherapy as your immune system will be already under severe stress and taking raw gaumutra can cause more severe infections.

There are over 200 types of cancer. Which cancer exactly does cow urine cure? So far, there is no definite "cure for cancer" because cancer isn't one disease to begin with. There's a "patent" for cow urine's efficacy in treating cancer floating around on the web. But a patent does not mean pharmaceutical efficacy. Thepatent waswas based on testing on mice, not humans. Unless there is pharmaceutical testing with human trials approved by a competent regulator such as the US FDA or the Indian Drug Controller General would be valid.

Q: A lady professor has questioned this answer of mine. This is the conversation we had:

The lady: there is ample scientific evidence.

Krishna: Oh, then show us the evidence. And show us now. Simple words won’t do here. We tried our best but never found any. If you really have evidence, provide us the links to the papers, not any papers, the genuine ones published in high quality journals, not dubious ones.

If you can provide genuine evidence, I will withdraw my words. That is science all about. Before using the word ’wrong’, prove me wrong first.

besides, a line from wikipedia says-. Cow urine is also used in folk medicine in Myanmar and Nigeria. ... the treatment of leprosy, fever, peptic ulcer, liver ailments, anaemia and cancer.

I seriously believe there is no harm in trying and option suppose it works.

Krishna: Believe?! A scientist should not use the word in the first place.

I have seen the links for papers you gave on your profile page which again say urine has the potential of immuno-enhancer properties under experiemntal conditions(Chemotherapeutic potential of cow urine: A review), not cure. And they say urine has anti- microbial properties which is completely opposite to this paper:harmful bacteria and infectious diseases. which says, cow’s urine itself contains pathogenic bacteria.

The paper also says gaumutra contains anti cancer agents. Like I already mentioned in my answer, While it is true that urine can contain tumor antigens, there is no evidence to show that drinking, massaging with, bathing in, or any other application of urine will stimulate antibody production or in any way fight off a cancer. The quantities of substances, including tumor antigens, present in urine are typically minuscule compared with those already present in the blood and elsewhere in the body. The bottom line is that drinking urine has no known medical benefit.

You should have understood this first: Having antigens ( or finding them in experimental conditions) in urine is not equal to cure.

Ask the researchers to publish in any one of these journals listed hereCancer Journals | CancerIndexand then we will accept. Tell them not to claim their successes in news papers. We want the published results in peer-reviewed high quality journals. Not the ones you gave. No genuine scientist accepts them as evidence. Sorry Madam… and no more arguments please on these lines and unreliable evidences you are providing. As a scientist, I cannot accept them and we are fighting the same here, pseudo-science!

Q: Others too joined this discussion and started asking the Qs ... I am adding some of it here ...

A person from general public (GP): This lady's profile says, she 's an 'award winning' professor and has attended several international conferences and published in 15 international journals and got several fellowships and top ranks in the university. Very impressive. But still she doesn't know what genuine scientific evidence is! What is this? I am confused!

Krishna: This is not the first time I saw this happening and I am sure this won't be the last time. I am not surprised.

GP: Should we blame our education system for this crisis?

Krishna: Need I stress it? And scientific education

Another person from GP: Can you please explain what genuine scientific evidence is?

One should concede that all research work done by modern science has been done with an underlying bias of its efficacy. This I can say with surety by quoting one single point which was chemically tested.

Research fellows who carried out lab tests of cow urine did not have any idea on collection of the sample itself. Be it known that the initial urine of any mammal carries maximum toxins (I have not read any pathological document on this - but it is a verified fact). Urine, collected for medicinal values, must leave out the initial 25% and the last 25%, which Ayurveda treats as poison. The 50% middle portion only is termed as medicine. Here too, Ayurveda suggests using a number of herbs to be given to the cow from whom the urine is expected : for any specific results. It is a deep science to understand. Patanjali and many others are marketing these for medical issues.

Further, I also wish to point out that tests carried out on mice and rabbits do not necessarily prove since body systems differ from human. The better would be choosewilling human beingswho may offer themselves and for the period may refrain from eating anything adverse to the treatment.

Here I am apt to quote a research carried out in a European country, verifying effects ofTerminalia Genus(Arjun chhal) by testing it on 100 people. It was declared ineffective. Now listen to the reason : the people on whom the decoctive was tested upon were having liquor in routine as a normal diet prevalent in the colder region. But when the same was tested on cardio-patients with duly restricted diet,they all showed marked improvement.Today many MDs suggest using Arjuna Terminalia for heart related issues.

So, basically downvoting the method used in verifying positive effects of Ayurvedic medicines and then declaring them of no use. I would readily agree with science if lab tests are carried out after due consultation with an expert naturopathy and Ayurveda Acharya instead of paying off a fresh BAMS to stand by the lab tests and then asking him toSign and Stampthe research papers. To print and present as ones' thesis project to undermine Ayurveda.

Krishna: 1. Ayurveda suggests using a number of herbs to be given to the cow from whom the urine is expected : for any specific results.

So you say the chemicals -byproducts -excreted by the cow after eating certain herbs are responsible for the results. In that case, the herbs themselves can be tested, not harmful urine which contain microbes and toxins excreted by the cows.

2. But when the same was tested on cardio-patients with duly restricted diet,they all showed marked improvement.

Has the restricted diet produced the results or theArjun chhal?

100 people is so small sample size, you cannot conclude anything based on these tests.

There will be several things to consider. That is what peer-reviewers do and reproduction of results using all parameters will do. Simple arguments, spinning the results in your favour, setting the conditions beforehand to suit your biases, publishing in dubious journals and refusing to submit your claims to modern scientific tests is not the right way to claim righteousness.

Ayurvedic doctor: (BS)

With all due respects to you and the line of study you quote, my only point is that whatever alternate medicine profess, must not be turned downwithoutproper verification upholding modern medicine. After all, most modern drugs do not come without side-effects, whereas alternate medicine are mostly safe.

Kindly note that I do not profess going head over heels on Ayurveda. Investigation and pathological studies of alternate medicine is completely dependent on modern science only.

Personally speaking, I hold cure to any health issue as the supreme consideration. It is irrespective whether it should come through labs of modern pharmacy or gifted by natural extract of herbs.

My humble point in the given discussion is that what can be achieved naturally need not be arrived at surgically - and all options available be properly investigated keeping health and comfort of patients in mind. Alternate medicine should be investigated responsibly in the best interest of humane treatment to patients. The concept of choosing a way through trauma to end another trauma should be treated an alternative (referring to chemo process seeking to terminate carcinoma of kinds).

I do concede further that requirements of such an eventuality would certainly exceed your given parameters of operation and study. Through my answer here, I intend knocking at the appropriate doors of Authority to further this point of investigating alternate medicine more thoroughly.

It may not be out of place to collect authentic experience of people who may have benefitted by using Ayurveda medicines. After all, there is a good sale off-the-counter for gaumutra as well.

Krishna:

1. I just spoke to a Urologist regarding this point of yours: “Be it known that the initial urine of any mammal carries maximum toxins (I have not read any pathological document on this - but it is a verified fact). Urine, collected for medicinal values, must leave out the initial 25% and the last 25%, which Ayurveda treats as poison. The 50% middle portion only is termed as medicine.”

He said, this is not true and all the urine contains harmful substances. He added that the results of urine tests can be affected by diet, dehydration, medicines, exercise, and other factors like internal metabolism. In someone who has ingested large amounts of water, making larger amounts of urine, small quantities of chemicals may be undetectable.

Mid-stream urine sample: A mid-stream urine sample means you don't collect the first or last part of urine that comes out. This reduces the risk of the sample being contaminated with bacteria from:

your hands

the skin around the urethra, the tube that carries urine out of the body

That’s all.

2. After all, most modern drugs do not come without side-effects, whereas alternate medicine are mostly safe.

Yes, modern medicines do come with side effects, but because they are released after conducting extensive tests, we know what they are and can manage them efficiently. This is not true with alternative medicines. They are not tested properly and come with side effects too. Read this article:This is what a liver transplant surgeon told me recently...

3. Yes, some people take gaumutra thinking that it is good. Ancient understanding with limitations of knowledge need not be correct. What we are saying is let us test the knowledge using modern methods and if they are beneficial let us authenticate this ancient wisdom too. Until then, let us be cautious and don’t jump to conclusions. And don’t mislead people into accepting them.

Q: Another person (PK): Just curious - Are the anti-tumor gens or bio-enhancing properties unique to cow urine or also present in urines of other animals/human ?Thanks!

Krishna:

Urine contains compounds eliminated by the body as undesirable, and can be irritating to skin and eyes. Urine is not sterile, it contains microbes, which can cause diseases.

Urine contains proteins and other substances that are useful for medical therapy and are ingredients in many prescription drugs (e.g., Ureacin, Urecholine, Urowave). Urine from postmenopausal women is rich in gonadotropins that can yield follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone for fertility therapy. One such commercial product is Pergonal.

Urine from pregnant women contains enough human chorionic gonadotropins for commercial extraction and purification to produce hCG medication. Pregnant mare urine is the source of estrogens, namely Premarin. Urine also contains antibodies, which can be used in diagnostic antibody tests for a range of pathogens, including HIV-1.

Urine can also be used to produce urokinase which is used clinically as a thrombolytic agent.

But all these have to be obtained using the right methods. Raw urine consumption is not advised as it contains several chemicals and pathogens that can be harmful for human beings.

Q: Another person (SCB):

I concur with your opinions, largely, Dr. Krishna.

Miracles - 100% non-scientific!

Krishna: Thank you so much. The song is good, liked it but …. but wife is not a commodity to give! :)

SCB:

Of course!

It is just a satirical way of expressing and no offence meant.

Krishna: Thanks.

Q: What is the Science Historian trying to say over in this debate "Rationality is not important"?

Krishna: I watched only a part of the video because of lack of time. But I understood your Q.

While I disagree that rationality is not important, for genuine science it is important. But rationality and reasoning can take two different ways:

(1) the one that is attached to emotions and beliefs (2) the one that is detached and neutral An example: You have a very young daughter whom you love more than your life. If one day she behaves very badly during a party, you try to understand with your loving mind and think that as she is still a child she doesn’t know how to behave properly and she would definitely learn things when she grows up and excuse her! Here your love for her shaped up your behaviour! As an unemotional person I would say that even if the child is young, she has to be taught how to behave in a public place with a mild warning after understanding her innocence so that she doesn’t repeat it and help her correct herself.

There is another aspect to this type of reasoning: Motivation. You want to forget your ex-girlfriend. So you try to reason that you would be better off without her by recollecting all her negative qualities!

This biased analysis of anything is due to the now well-known psychological phenomenon of motivated reasoning. Research suggests that all people tend to seek out information that confirms (or at least does not challenge) the conclusions they want to draw on a given topic. In other words, we will work to discredit or avoid information that might require us to reconsider our pre-existing beliefs. Motivated reasoning is particularly likely when taking the other side might create conflict within our social circle—like religious or political or ideological groups.

Likewise if you are attached to a belief (or emotion or group or ideology), it fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth.

What this science historian ‘s trying to say is some scientists too do or say irrational things. I fully agree. The reason: They do rationalize when still they are attached to emotions, ideologies and beliefs. Because they are unable to come out of the conditioning of their minds, they cannot doCritical Thinking(CT) correctly. And critical thinking is more important than rationality. CT avoids logicalfallaciesandcognitive biasesand proceeds based on factual information. Critical thinking has a much broader concept than reasoning and rationality. Rationality need not be knowledge based or fact based or bias free. Genuine Critical thinking usually is (Please click on the links to understand properly these words).

Socritical thinkingisextremely importantthan ignorant rationality and motivated reasoning for a scientist. If a scientist doesn’t get proper training, s/he resorts to the latter than the former and his/her thought process becomes lopsided.

Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours,Homo sapiens.

It is not science that is at fault, it is the person using it. Unable to use it properly, if you complain about it, it is like a bad worker complaining about his tools!

Eugenics is not appreciated by modern scientists. Infact many scientists are asking the scientific community to abandon it.

I think this science historian is one person who didn’t get his science training properly and Ms.Mukta Dabholkardid a good job in countering his arguments correctly. Don’t worry about these lopsided arguments. But we have to counter them at the same time to remove confusion in the minds of people.

It is exactly his type of rationality we down vote!

Q: Based on the above one:

I took some time to understand your answer. The question I have is that you define Critical Thinking and Rationality as different things. However, is this a definition you created or is it commonly accepted?

I feel that after reading your article, you wanted to use the word “Reasoning” in place of rationality, in this answer you wrote.

Krishna: Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason. You reason before becoming rational.

Critical thinking, also called critical analysis, is clear, more advanced rational thinking involving critic, evidence and facts. It is placed higher than mere rational thinking and is a highly complex analysis.

You might justify your thoughts and actions using some rationality based on your perceptions and views but critical thinking questions rationality too if evidence shows a different version of facts.

This is clearly not my definition but all intellectuals agree on this.

Q: Do you also try to learn things?

Krishna: Yes! Daily I go for a roller-coaster ride. I go up to learn things from other scientists and experts and get a thrill and high and then come down to share my knowledge with others and get satisfaction from it.

I am addicted to knowledge. I cannot survive without it.

Q: What is your opinion on India's ban on GM food crops? Are the fears based on any evidence?

Krishna: When we, the people of science, answer a question with regard to science, we state evidence based facts, not opinions. Opinions have no value in the world of science.

Fear for GM crops and foods are based on lack of knowledge, misinformation, fear of the unknown, intuitive reasoning, biases, fallacies, conditioning of minds, politics.

We cannot completely dismiss GM food. We need to feed billions of people walking on Earth right now.

Benefits such as reduced pesticide use and its ecological impact cannot be ignored. In developing countries like India, where malnutrition and vitamin deficiency cause severe illnesses, complete banning of these GM crops like yellow rice is highly controversial.

Malnutrition kills people. Nobody ever died because of GM foods. Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 20 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA . More than two-thirds of foods sold in the United States involve some GM product, estimates suggest, without any bad consequences. Even cattle fed on GM crop residues didn't show any side effects during various studies . We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. In the past 20 years, around 1,200 scientific studies, the "vast majority" of which were published in journals that have no financial ties to the food or agriculture industries, make the case for mainstream use of GMO's in food. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals. Majority of the scientists agree with this logic. A recent poll from the Pew Foundation found that nearly 90% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) – one of the world’s largest science bodies – have concluded that, based on increasingly mounting evidence, GM food is perfectly safe. And they think that people who disregard two decades of scientific research for some feel-good factor, are falling prey for a psuedo-scientific myth!

If you are taking insulin, odds are it's from GMO bacteria. And it's saving lives.

Medicines for other deadly diseases like malaria too are being developed by using GM modified yeast.

Genetically modified male cabbage moths feasting on the cabbage ( which carry a gene designed to kill progeny they sire with wild female moths ) are being used in the US to keep the agriculture pests in control and to restrict the use of harmful pesticides.

The same people who are against GM food are perfectly willing to inject themselves with genetically engineered insulin if they are diabetics or genetically moleculed antibodies if they have lymphoma. What an irony!

I would eat genetically modified food without any hesitation. And take GM medicines in case I have to. Most scientists do!

Now I will have to provide evidence. Okay.

If you want references for all that I said here and more information on GM crops and foods that debunks the myths please click on the link below …